Sunday, May 24, 2009




Local ACLU branch loses the plot

They seem to have forgotten that Christians are the enemy:
"An incident at the Breaux Bridge Crawfish Festival in which ministers were prohibited from distributing religious literature has caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana and a part-time Breaux Bridge resident, wrote a letter May 15 to Breaux Bridge Mayor Jack Delhomme and city leaders to do what it takes to ensure that all expression, including religious expression, be allowed in public places.

The letter was prompted by reports that several ministers were stopped from distributing religious literature outside the Crawfish Festival in a public park earlier this month, she said. “The sidewalks of Breaux Bridge, as any other city, are public spaces open to everyone. They cannot be preempted by a private group for private purposes,” Esman wrote. “Neither religious nor any other speech on public streets or in public spaces may be curtailed to benefit a private group.”

Delhomme, the ministers and others are expected to meet next week to discuss the incident and determine how to avoid a similar situation in the future, City Attorney Chester Cedars said. "There is no ordinance that prohibits these individuals from doing what they were doing,” Cedars said. “Even if there was such an ordinance, it would be unconstitutional.”

In her letter to Delhomme, Esman notes that the ACLU “has a long history of supporting religious freedom and expression.” [First time I have heard of it]

Cedars said he finds that statement ironic since the ACLU threatened to sue the city of Breaux Bridge several years ago for displaying a nativity scene in a public park.

Source

5 comments:

Dean said...

"Cedars said he finds that statement ironic since the ACLU threatened to sue the city of Breaux Bridge several years ago for displaying a nativity scene in a public park."

There is a difference between a government entity appearing to, or actually, promoting a specific religious belief and a non-government group or person doing so.

The first is prohibited by our constitution, the second is expressly permitted by the constitution.

The ACLU to my knowledge has been consistent in their stand on that basis, as it is in this case.

Anonymous said...

You're right Dean, "if" that Nativity scene was put in the "public park" by the local govt. And the only thing the ACLU has been consistent on, is their well-known anti-religion stance which is almost always anti-Christian.

Anonymous said...

So the nativity scene was Congress making a law to establish an official religion?

Anonymous said...

Should the ACLU be suing the Founding Fathers for promoting the use of The Bible (yes, including Jefferson) in education?

Bobby said...

Dean, while America has no official religion, public expression of religion have always been part of our history. Did Obama not swear using Lincoln's bible? Does congress not open with a prayer? Do witnesses in court not swear "so help me God?"

What the founders didn't want was persecution based on religion, such as a mostly catholic city prohibiting baptist churches. A nativity scene persecutes no one.